作业示例

Luise8891UID: 2906459

我是刘周同学，我的作业BlahBlahBlah。这里我随便粘贴了别人的一篇
"We can usually learn much more from people whose views we share than from people whose views contradict our own; disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning."
Do we learn more from people whose ideas we share in common than from those whose ideas contradict ours? The speaker claims so, for the reason that disagreement can cause stress and inhibit learning. I concede that undue discord can impede learning. Otherwise, in my view we learn far more from discourse and debate with those whose ideas we oppose than from people whose ideas are in accord with our own.
Admittedly, under some circumstances disagreement with others can be counterproductive to learning. For supporting examples one need look no further than a television set. On today's typical television or radio talk show, disagreement usually manifests itself in meaningless rhetorical bouts and shouting matches, during which opponents vie to have their own message heard, but have little interest either in finding common ground with or in acknowledging the merits of the opponent's viewpoint. Understandably, neither the combatants nor the viewers learn anything meaningful. In fact, these battles only serve to reinforce the predispositions and biases of all concerned. The end result is that learning is impeded.
Disagreement can also inhibit learning when two opponents disagree on fundamental assumptions needed for meaningful discourse and debate. For example, a student of paleontology learns little about the evolution of an animal species under current study by debating with an individual whose religious belief system precludes the possibility of evolution to begin with. And, economics and finance students learn little about the dynamics of a laissez-faire system by debating with a socialist whose view is that a centralized power should control all economic activity.
Aside from the foregoing two provisos, however, I fundamentally disagree with the speaker's claim. Assuming common ground between two rational and reasonable opponents willing to debate on intellectual merits, both opponents stand to gain much from that debate. Indeed it is primarily through such debate that human knowledge advances, whether at the personal, community, or global level.
At the personal level, by listening to their parents' rationale for their seemingly oppressive rules and policies teenagers can learn how certain behaviors naturally carry certain undesirable consequences. At the same time, by listening to their teenagers' concerns about autonomy and about peer pressures parents can learn the valuable lesson that effective parenting and control are two different things. At the community level, through dispassionate dialogue an environmental activist can come to understand the legitimate economic concerns of those whose jobs depend on the continued profitable operation of a factory. Conversely, the latter might stand to learn much about the potential public health price to be paid by ensuring job growth and a low unemployment rate. Finally, at the global level, two nations with opposing political or economic interests can reach mutually beneficial agreements by striving to understand the other's legitimate concerns for its national security, its political sovereignty, the stability of its economy and currency, and so forth.
In sum, unless two opponents in a debate are each willing to play on the same field and by the same rules, I concede that disagreement can impede learning. Otherwise, reasoned discourse and debate between people with opposing viewpoints is the very foundation upon which human knowledge advances. Accordingly, on balance the speaker is fundamentally correct.
   附上中文提纲，字数，时间。便于别人批改

Luise8891UID: 2906459

我是吴丽同学，我负责刘周第一改。可以先把文章复制粘贴到word里改了再粘到这里。格式如下
ISSUE17
Agnes 改 谦行天下

Red-语法词法问题
Blue-好词好句
Pink-不理解的地方
Green-小结

Law which is（这里语法有误，which is换做“，”，后面的a system of rules做同位语即可） a system of rules, is the primary social mediator of relationships between people because it shapes the economics, politics and society in numerous ways. Laws can be divided into two categories—— just and unjust ones, but since law can only represent the interest or stake of a certain group of people, the just and unjust is relative. It is an undeniable truth that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws, and take serious action to unjust laws.
作者观点：
认为法律可以分为公平与不公平两种，这种界定是相对的。我们应该遵守公平的法律，但也要对不公平的法律作出相关的行动。

The standard of just and unjust laws is not a straightforward issue. We have no clear definition of just and unjust law. Different people hold different view, for example, Dr. Martin Luther King said that “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” From my point of view, laws always benefit a certain group, the majority or the minority, and harm the others. The just law needs to be debated by people and finally people agree to a conclusion. Consider, for example, although tax could cut down the personal income of citizens, we could not catalog the tax law as unjust when someone evade the tax. Another example some laws allow the abortion of mothers. While some regions forbid abortion, it is ex parte to classify the law as unjust law. Thus, we cannot judge laws by personal interests or ethnic bias.
法律的公正与否不能被简单界定，不同人有不同的观点：距离马丁和作者的个人观点。
有些法律对一部分人是有利的，对另一部分人是不利的。所以不能仅凭个人好恶和背景判定法律的公正与否。

Legal systems elaborate right and responsibilities. Every individual has responsibility to obey just laws, even when the law is opposite to personal interests, and enjoy their right, which preconditions（这个词放在这里词性不对吧~我对这句话理解不来） a stable and orderly society. Nations always strictly enforce the law with the help of army. It is people’s right and responsibility to obey the rules.
个人无论如何评判法律，都应该遵守法律，确保社会和谐。(我觉得这一段的观点和首段的主观点有点偏差，首段说是要遵守公正的法律，把范围缩小了)

However, to change the unjust law also is（also这样用有些中式英语的感觉~）
the responsibility of citizens, for doing so will help improve the legal system of a nation. The reforming of unjust law always takes a long time. Laws could be unjust due to wrong conventions or misjudgment of justices. In the famous movie The Shawshank Redemption, the two heroes are victims of unjust laws which elude the existential unjust law（不理解这一句~望解释）. In real world, reason people use non-violence movement to resist unjust law to avoid innocent death. For instance, in the civil war, Dr King emancipated the blacks without guns. Nowadays, it is common （to see that）officials collect the opinion from people, discuss in small scale conference and submit to the advanced parliaments to discuss. The reformation of unjust law passes when most people support.
然而，个人应帮助改革不公的法律，用非暴力的首段来促进改革。

In conclusion, just law ensures the stable（stablity） of a society and every citizen need（s） to obey just laws. People also have responsibility to help reform unjust law by non-violent ways. The justice of law is relative to a certain group of people, and when people judge the law, numerous of debate need to be progressed to reach a reasonable conclusion of the law.


我觉得谦的总体思路是：法律公正与否不能根据人的主观想法判断，是相对的概念——不管公正与否都应遵守维护社会安定——即使有不公平之处，应用非暴力的手段促进改革。
和我的想法类似~
感觉行文蛮流畅的，词句丰富，也有例子的支撑~是我所欠缺的地方。学习！
本身对这个题目就不太懂…所以也不知道改的是否恰当~

Luise8891UID: 2906459

我是刘妍同学，我负责刘周的二改。
ISSUE17
Agnes 改 谦行天下

Red-语法词法问题
Blue-好词好句
Pink-不理解的地方
Green-小结

Law which is（这里语法有误，which is换做“，”，后面的a system of rules做同位语即可） a system of rules, is the primary social mediator of relationships between people because it shapes the economics, politics and society in numerous ways. Laws can be divided into two categories—— just and unjust ones, but since law can only represent the interest or stake of a certain group of people, the just and unjust is relative. It is an undeniable truth that every individual in a society has a responsibility to obey just laws, and take serious action to unjust laws.
作者观点：
认为法律可以分为公平与不公平两种，这种界定是相对的。我们应该遵守公平的法律，但也要对不公平的法律作出相关的行动。

The standard of just and unjust laws is not a straightforward issue. We have no clear definition of just and unjust law. Different people hold different view, for example, Dr. Martin Luther King said that “Any law that degrades human personality is unjust.” From my point of view, laws always benefit a certain group, the majority or the minority, and harm the others. The just law needs to be debated by people and finally people agree to a conclusion. Consider, for example, although tax could cut down the personal income of citizens, we could not catalog the tax law as unjust when someone evade the tax. Another example some laws allow the abortion of mothers. While some regions forbid abortion, it is ex parte to classify the law as unjust law. Thus, we cannot judge laws by personal interests or ethnic bias.
法律的公正与否不能被简单界定，不同人有不同的观点：距离马丁和作者的个人观点。
有些法律对一部分人是有利的，对另一部分人是不利的。所以不能仅凭个人好恶和背景判定法律的公正与否。

Legal systems elaborate right and responsibilities. Every individual has responsibility to obey just laws, even when the law is opposite to personal interests, and enjoy their right, which preconditions（这个词放在这里词性不对吧~我对这句话理解不来） a stable and orderly society. Nations always strictly enforce the law with the help of army. It is people’s right and responsibility to obey the rules.
个人无论如何评判法律，都应该遵守法律，确保社会和谐。(我觉得这一段的观点和首段的主观点有点偏差，首段说是要遵守公正的法律，把范围缩小了)

However, to change the unjust law also is（also这样用有些中式英语的感觉~）
the responsibility of citizens, for doing so will help improve the legal system of a nation. The reforming of unjust law always takes a long time. Laws could be unjust due to wrong conventions or misjudgment of justices. In the famous movie The Shawshank Redemption, the two heroes are victims of unjust laws which elude the existential unjust law（不理解这一句~望解释）. In real world, reason people use non-violence movement to resist unjust law to avoid innocent death. For instance, in the civil war, Dr King emancipated the blacks without guns. Nowadays, it is common （to see that）officials collect the opinion from people, discuss in small scale conference and submit to the advanced parliaments to discuss. The reformation of unjust law passes when most people support.
然而，个人应帮助改革不公的法律，用非暴力的首段来促进改革。

In conclusion, just law ensures the stable（stablity） of a society and every citizen need（s） to obey just laws. People also have responsibility to help reform unjust law by non-violent ways. The justice of law is relative to a certain group of people, and when people judge the law, numerous of debate need to be progressed to reach a reasonable conclusion of the law.


我觉得谦的总体思路是：法律公正与否不能根据人的主观想法判断，是相对的概念——不管公正与否都应遵守维护社会安定——即使有不公平之处，应用非暴力的手段促进改革。
和我的想法类似~
感觉行文蛮流畅的，词句丰富，也有例子的支撑~是我所欠缺的地方。学习！
本身对这个题目就不太懂…所以也不知道改的是否恰当~